JUDGMENT Mahendra Dayal,J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Ist Additional Judge Small Causes, Court 18, Lucknow in SCC No.11 of 2002 rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. and the judgment and order dated 26.04.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge (Special Judge C.B.I.), Court No.3, Lucknow, in Revision No.123 of 2013 dismissing the revision filed against the aforesaid order dated 18.11.2013. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the opposite party no.1 filed a suit against the petitioner for his ejectment and decree for damages on the ground that the petitioner was a tenant in respect of a portion of Balda Quarter situate at No.2 Khas Bazar, Kaiserbagh, Lucknow on a monthly rent of Rs.200/- and the petitioner had made material alteration and addition raising new construction in the tenanted portion without the consent and permission of the opposite party no.2, whereby the utility and value of the building has diminished. It was also pleaded by the opposite party no.1 that the petitioner has also demolished the portion of a building under tenancy without the permission of the opposite party no.1. 3. The petitioner filed a written statement thereby admitting the fact of material alteration and addition but stated that whatever additions and alterations were made in the building, that were done with the permission and consent of the opposite party no.1. 4. After filing of the written statement by the petitioner, the opposite party no.2 filed an application paper no.C-66 under Order XII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the opposite party no.1 has not disclosed the period as to when the said additions or alterations were made. The date of alleged material alteration has also not been disclosed in the statutory paragraph of cause of action, and thus, the plaint was defective for want of cause of action. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that in para-7 of the plaint, the cause of action has been disclosed and the fact with regard to the date and time of material alteration is a mixed question of fact and law which can be decided only after evidence of the parties. 5. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge on the ground that in para-7 of the plaint, the cause of action has been disclosed and the fact with regard to the date and time of material alteration is a mixed question of fact and law which can be decided only after evidence of the parties. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Lucknow, which was transferred for disposal to the Court of Additional District Judge (Special Judge C.B.I.), Court No.3, Lucknow, but the learned Revisional Court also dismissed the revision. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mohd. Abid Ali has argued that Order VII C.P.C. provides for rejection for plaint in certain cases. The first ground for rejection of plaint is that if the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, the Court has to reject the plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court towards para-7 of the plaint, in which it has been stated that the cause of action accrued to the opposite party no.1 against the petitioner for ejectment on 24.10.2001 when the period notice of ejectment expired and for damages and notice charges on 25.10.2001 and thereafter on each day within the jurisdiction of the court. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that since ejectment of the petitioner has been sought on the ground of material alteration and addition it was obligatory on the part of the opposite party no.1 to disclose the date or month or the alleged alteration and addition, because cause of action accrued to the opposite party no.1 only when the petitioner allegedly raised construction and made alteration and addition in the building. The learned trial court fell into error of law by making an observation that the controversy involved mixed question of fact and law while it is purely a question of law as to whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action or not. 8. The learned trial court fell into error of law by making an observation that the controversy involved mixed question of fact and law while it is purely a question of law as to whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action or not. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court towards Order VII Rule 1, which provides as to what the plaint should contain Clause (e) of Rule-1 provides that the fact constituting the cause of action and when it arose, should be disclosed in the plaint. Thus, the perusal of the Order VII Rule 1 makes it clear that it is necessary for the plaintiff to disclose as to when the cause of action arose. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that unless the period of alleged material alteration and addition is disclosed in the plaint, it will be defective for want of cause of action and Rule 11 of Order VII empowers the Court to reject a plaint, if it does not disclose the cause of action. The opposite party no.1, in para-7 of the plaint, has disclosed the cause of action for filing of the suit as 25.10.2001 when the period of one month mentioned in the notice expired, but the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings of ejectment right from the issuance of notice till the filing of the suit accrued only from the date when the alleged material alterations and additions were made. 9. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon'ble Court reported in 1990 All.L.J. 228, in which it has been held that Order VII Rule 1 (e) provides that the plaint should contain a particular regarding the facts constituting the cause of action and when it arose. If no date of construction is mentioned in the plaint as to when the said constructions were affected, the plaint would be liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for want of cause of action. 10. If no date of construction is mentioned in the plaint as to when the said constructions were affected, the plaint would be liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. for want of cause of action. 10. Sri S.C.Tewari appearing on behalf of the contesting opposite party no.1 has, on the other hand, submitted that in the written statement, the fact of making alteration and addition in the premises has been admitted by the petitioner and as such there was no dispute with regard to the fact as to whether the alterations were made in the tenanted premises or not. The controversy was only with regard to the fact that the opposite party no.1 gave permission to make alteration or the petitioner himself without taking permission of the opposite party no.1 made alterations and additions in the building. This question was a question of fact which could be decided only after evidence of the parties. Both the courts below, therefore, committed no illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner moved under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. 11. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has relied upon a case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 7 SCC 510 , in which it has been held that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. apply only in those cases were the statement made by the plaintiff in the plaint shows that the suit is barred by any law enforce. It is also a submission on behalf of the opposite party no.1 that the provisions of Order VII Rule 11C.P.C. has no application, if such controversy could be decided only after the evidence of the parties. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders and the judgments, one thing is clear that the opposite party no.1 has nowhere disclosed in the plaint as to when the alleged alterations and additions were made by the petitioner. The cause of action as disclosed in para-7 of the plaint is that the cause of action accrued to the opposite party no.1 when the period mentioned in the notice expired. The cause of action as disclosed in para-7 of the plaint is that the cause of action accrued to the opposite party no.1 when the period mentioned in the notice expired. Although the factum of making addition or alteration in the building is admitted to the petitioner, but it is a settled law that the jurisdiction of the court and the cause of action for filing of the suit is to be decided only on the basis of averments made in the plaint and not on the basis of defence taken in the written statement. The occasion for issuing a notice terminating the tenancy of the petitioner arose only when the petitioner made additions and alterations in the building, therefore, disclosure of the period was mandatory on the part of the opposite party no.1. It is mandatory under Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C. that the plaint should contain the particulars regarding the facts constituting the cause of action as and when it arose. The fact constituting the cause of action is that the petitioner made additions and alterations in the building without the permission of the opposite party no.1. A perusal of the plaint would clearly show that no date and period has been mentioned as to when the said alterations and additions were affected constituting the cause of action. Thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of S.K.Banerji Vs. Surendra Narain Mishra reported in 1990 All.L.J. 228 is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. 13. Learned trial court has only observed in the impugned order that the question is a mixed question of fact and law. In my opinion, the question with regard to the cause of action, is purely a legal question and it is the duty of the court to ascertain that the plaint discloses a cause of action, otherwise the plaint has to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Learned revisional court has also not considered this legal aspect of the matter in coming to the conclusion that since the averments with regard to alterations and additions have been made in the plaint, therefore, there was cause of action for filing of the suit. 14. In view of above, both the orders impugned in the instant writ petition are liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 15. 14. In view of above, both the orders impugned in the instant writ petition are liable to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders dated 18.11.2013 passed by the Ist Additional Small Causes, Lucknow in SCC No.11 of 2002 and the order dated 26.04.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge, (Special Judge, C.B.I.) Court No.2 in Revision No.123 of 2013 are set aside. However, from the perusal of the impugned order dated 18.11.2013, it appears that the learned trial court has already proceeded with the trial, hence it is directed that before proceeding with the case, learned trial court shall frame points of determination including the one with regard to the cause of action and also decide the application of the petitioner moved under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. afresh, along with point of determination framed in respect of cause of action in the light of the observations made in this judgment.